RE: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

You should not discount the scriptures.
Mark 12:24
Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures
or the power of God?

They are not just man made writings.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness,

The verse from Timothy explains their purpose. The purpose is to give us
answers for our spiritual growth. Jesus relied on them constantly. When
confronted by Satan, he quoted scripture. His life fulfilled scripture -
many, many scriptures. That is much of what was miraculous about the life of
Jesus.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged
sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the
joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the
heart.

The Bible gives us answers about us - about our thoughts and about our
hearts. It doesn't say it will give us answers about the cosmos. Jesus
constantly spoke in parables. He didn't necessarily say when he was speaking
in parables. The Old Testament may very well transition back and forth
between parables and truth without telling us which is which. True stories
may be told in ancient fashion - which is to say they may be elaborated on
in order to reveal or express a greater truth. Our 'literal truth down to
the details' perspective is not something which permeates ancient culture.
Aren't there experts here who can shed a little light on the way history was
expressed in ancient times? I've done some reading and research, and the
facts weren't the biggest issue. Changing the facts in favor of drama and a
greater truth was pretty much expected in many cultures. We think it
matters, they didn't - or rather they did. The story mattered. The point of
the story mattered. Honoring the hero with literary elaboration mattered. I
wish someone would expound on this. I've heard this philosophy still exists
in the East. Surely someone has experience in it?

Romans 15:4
For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that
through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have
hope.

The purpose of the scripture is to teach us about life and godliness.

The veracity of the scriptures is not just about who it was written by; it
is about who it was written to. You cannot judge it by our modern standards
with no knowledge of the past.

I can just hear your retort - 'but, God knew that we would be reading it
also. Why didn't he think of us?'

He did think of us. We have a world of knowledge at our fingertips. You want
it to be easy and obvious. That isn't the point. It's a pearl of great price
that the man in the parable sold everything he had to acquire. It isn't
supposed to be easy and obvious. This isn't freezer waffles here.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Don Winterstein
  Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 5:31 AM
  To: Glenn Morton; asa
  Subject: Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

  GRM: Fantastic, so we are to follow the word of man. yeah, that is what I
want to spend my life doing. All religions are simply the word of man and
there is nothing special about them.

  DFW: All witnessing to acts of God among humans are words of man. This of
course includes all Christian witnessing. So, yes, if there is anything for
us to follow, it necessarily will be the word of some human or group of
humans. You can hope for some spectacular revelation written by God
somewhere in the far reaches of the universe, but I'm betting you ain't
gonna get it in this lifetime. God has not chosen to promote himself in
that way; he promotes his causes among humans through humans.

  GRM: Why should I listen to a god who can't get a man to write the truth
about what I can verify? Why should I trust what the books says about what
I can't verify.

  DFW: OK, you claim you aren't asking for proof of God's existence, but you
are putting God to the test by saying something like, "Unless God complies
with this or that preconceived notion about what inspired scriptures ought
to say and how they ought to say it, he's not worth believing." God (if I
may be so bold) did not have as one of his priorities that scriptures should
contain scientifically verifiable facts. It's fairly obvious that was not
his purpose; hence I conclude from the tenor of scriptures (and experience)
that relationship was his purpose. All content is subordinate to that.
(Relationship with God is basically another word for Love.)

  GRM: Is this from 2nd Athenians 5:4 where it says, "God's purpose was to
promote and enhance relationship with God." I can't find this in any other
place in the Bible other than 2nd Athenians 5:4.

  Try I John 4.

  Where does it say in the Bible that scriptures are the Word of God? In
fact, "Word of God" as used in the Bible never means scriptures. And if the
Bible did make such a claim, why should you believe it? It was a group of
mere men who chose the writings to be included in the Bible; why should you
believe those men knew which writings were inspired and which were not?
What is inspiration, and what does it imply?

  [Aside: The current problem with YECs has its roots in the super-elevated
status conferred on the Bible presumably following the Protestant
Reformation. YECs are as fearful of deviating from literal interpretations
as Muslims would be in deviating from the Quran: both consider their texts
to be the literal Word of God. If anything is found to be wrong with the
text, it is God who fails; so the text must be infallible by definition.
Your thinking seems analogous to YECs' thinking in this respect.]

  GRM: Are you saying you were converted by prophecies which had no
concordance with any historical event--prophecies which were not fulfilled?
I would understand this if you were converted by prophecies which CONCORDED
to reality, but to be converted by prophecies which have no concordance with
reality is truly amazing!!!!

  DFW: No, I didn't say that, so don't get excited. Jeremiah's prophecies
in fact were fulfilled--rather more so than Ezekiel's, for example. But
suppose I'd decided to hang my hat on this (partially) verifiable
fulfillment. Some scholar would certainly make well-researched arguments
(and no doubt has already done so) that the predictions that came true were
actually modified (or formulated) after the fact to make them conform to
what happened. So I couldn't win if I'd been trying to pin my faith on some
"verifiable" fact or other. There would always be reason to doubt.

  What I actually said (in effect) was that my conversion depended far more
on Jeremiah's tone than on his subject matter. Many Christian conversions
similarly depend more strongly on how the witness is presented than on the
words themselves. Human communication in general depends strongly on more
than just verbal content. Billy Graham's effectiveness had a great deal to
do with how he delivered the message. Every evangelist says roughly the
same things but not in the same way or with the same degree of
effectiveness.

  Don

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: glennmorton@entouch.net
    To: asa@calvin.edu ; 'Don Winterstein'
    Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:25 AM
    Subject: Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

>>>On Tue May 30 3:00 , "Don Winterstein" sent:

      Glenn wrote:

      "...Either the Bible is to be interpreted differently (as I have
tried) or it is false and God don't know diddly about how the world was
created."

      OR scriptural inspiration isn't what you think it is. We've gone over
this before, and I don't expect any better outcome this time, but maybe it's
still worth a stab:

      Men wrote the Bible, not God. <<<<

      Fantastic, so we are to follow the word of man. yeah, that is what I
want to spend my life doing. All religions are simply the word of man and
there is nothing special about them.

>>>>Men were inspired by God to put down in words what they considered
to be important aspects and consequences of their relationship with God.
<<<<

      My bad attitude will show through here, but if it is written by men,
what does god have to do with anything? If God can't communicate something
to man and man writes what he wants to write, then there is a problem. Why
should I listen to a god who can't get a man to write the truth about what I
can verify? Why should I trust what the books says about what I can't
verify.

       I too don't expect a much better outcome of this go round than the
last.

>>>>Thousands of years ago, the creation story said meaningful things
to people at that time about God's relationship to humans. The relationship
was the important thing, and the scriptures promoted that relationship at
that time and for many centuries to come. It still promotes such
relationship for us if we can put ourselves in those ancient shoes. <<<<

      My sarcasm will unfortunately show forth, but if meaningfulness is
what we want, how about "A rose by any other name should smell as sweet" Now
that is meaningful! That says bucketloads about our relationship to roses.

>>>The relationship with God did not teach science to the inspired
writers. <<<

      OK, God inspired (or let men) teach false things about what we can
verify. I can buy that. But then why would I believe that God always told
the truth about the theology he was supposedly inspiring those lying humans
to write? How do I know that there are angels in Heaven if God actually
allowed a human to teach that the world was created 6000 years ago?

      Sarcasm once more, maybe you are more trusting than I.

>>>The purpose of scriptures is to promote and enhance relationship
with God. <<<

      Is this from 2nd Athenians 5:4 where it says, "God's purpose was to
promote and enhance relationship with God." I can't find this in any other
place in the Bible other than 2nd Athenians 5:4.

>>>The Bible is a record of God's interactions with humans, and from
that record we can infer that we also may interact with God. <<<

      This I could buy, but that doesn't tell us God's purpose or why he let
those lying humans say what they did about nature, about a 6000 year old
creation, about a flood that didn't happen etc. Since all that didn't
happen, how can I be sure that the theology the Bible teaches is actually
real? Upon what basis do I judge that, Don?

>>>>About 50 years ago I was "converted" by reading Jeremiah's
prophecies. What was it about those prophecies that converted me? Was I
perhaps particularly impressed with how the prophet dealt with King
Zedekiah? No way. The history bored me at the time. What impressed me was
the way Jeremiah's writings conveyed the unmistakable impression that he was
in a close relationship with God, a relationship that involved frequent
poignant interaction. Much to my surprise, Jeremiah's accounts of his
interactions with God led immediately to my own interaction with God--as if
it had been contagious. The experience was life-changing. Big time. <<<

      Are you saying you were converted by prophecies which had no
concordance with any historical event--prophecies which were not fulfilled?
I would understand this if you were converted by prophecies which CONCORDED
to reality, but to be converted by prophecies which have no cocordance with
reality is truly amazing!!!! You are one in a million.

>>>This personal history, I think, largely explains why my view of
inspiration is orthogonal to yours. You seem to think God dictated the
content, so that if anything is inconsistent with science, it reflects
poorly on God. I see the content rather as a human witness to the reality
of God's love, a witness that suggests to us that we as humans can also know
that love. <<<

      I truly stand in awe of a person converted to a religion by prophecies
which do not have fulfilment and do not match history. This is truly an ama
zing state of affairs. My hat is off to you. You are a better man than I.
Received on Wed May 31 08:54:04 2006